An analysis of conflict experienced between agencies involved with asylum seekers

Abstract

During the summer of 1999, four boats carrying 599 asylum seekers from China entered Canadian waters off the West Coast of Vancouver Island, B.C. The event sparked federal and provincial government agencies and community organizations to move quickly to manage the unprecedented service demands created by their arrival. Agencies, from various jurisdictions, many with no history of collaborating with one another, began to liaise. In the course of working together, collaboration was hampered by a lack of clarity over respective roles, strains on agency resources, poor communication and lack of consultation. The root of these conflict areas lay with the difficulty of reconciling differing agency mandates. It is however argued that such differences in agency mandates became the subject of polarizing agency positions as a result of the heightened political context. This included the relentless media attention and coverage scrutinizing the arrival of the asylum seekers.This paper examines the conflicts that occurred from the perspective of staff from agencies involved with the unaccompanied minors. It provides an evaluation of the conflicts through the lens of relevant conflict and organizational behavior theories published in the UK and North America. It also presents a tentative model for minimizing future conflicts in similar situations. Whilst this model draws on the recent Canadian experience, its application has wider purchase.